Twitter

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

(The following is based on a combination of first - hand knowledge
and a composite reconstruction of events as retold to me.)

Many years ago when I was a
relatively young yeshiva student I had the opportunity to study with one of the
great rabbis of the previous generation. His name was Rabbi Yisroel
Zeev Gustman and he may have been one of the greatest rabbis of the 20th century.
He was certainly the greatest "unknown" rabbi: While he fastidiously
avoided the limelight and was therefore unfamiliar to the general public, he
was well known to connoisseurs of Torah learning.

His meteoric rise from child prodigy
to the exalted position of religious judge in the Rabbinical Court
of Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski at around the age of twenty was the stuff
of legend – but nonetheless fact. Many years later, I heard Rav Gustman's
own modest version of the events leading to this appointment: A singular
(brilliant) insight which he shared with his fellow students was later repeated
to the visiting Rav Chaim Ozer, who invited the young student to repeat this
same insight the following day in his office in Vilna. Unbeknownst to Rav
Gustman, the insight clinched an argument in a complex case that had been
debated among the judges in Rav Chaim Ozer's court – and allowed a woman to
remarry.

One of the judges adjudicating the
case in question, Rabbi Meir Bassin, made inquiries about this young
man, and soon a marriage was arranged with his daughter Sarah. When Rabbi Bassin
passed away before the wedding, Rabbi Gustman was tapped to take his
place as rabbi of Shnipishok and to take his seat on the court. Although
Rav Gustman claimed that he was simply "in the right place at the right
time," it was clear that Rav Bassin and Rav Chaim Ozer had seen greatness
in this young man.

While a long, productive career on
the outskirts of Vilna could have been anticipated, Jewish life in and around
Vilna was obliterated by World War II. Rav Gustman escaped, though not
unscathed. He hid among corpses. He hid in caves. He hid in a pig pen. Somehow,
he survived.

For me, Rav Gustman was the living
link to the Jewish world destroyed by the Nazis. I never had to wonder what a
Rav in Vilna before the war looked like, for I had seen Rav Gustman, 35 years
after the war. At the head of a small yeshiva in the Rechavia section of Jerusalem,
Rav Gustman taught a small group of loyal students six days a week. But on
Thursdays at noon, the study hall would fill to capacity: Rabbis,
intellectuals, religious court judges, a Supreme Court justice and various
professors would join along with any and all who sought a high - level Talmud shiur that
offered a taste of what had been nearly destroyed. When Rav Gustman gave shiur,
Vilna was once again alive and vibrant.

One of the regular participants was a
professor at the Hebrew University, Robert J. (Yisrael) Aumann. Once
a promising yeshiva student, he had eventually decided to pursue a career in
academia, but made his weekly participation in Rav Gustman’s shiur part
of his schedule, along with many other more or less illustrious residents of
Rechavia and Jerusalem.

The year was 1982. Once again, Israel was
at war. Soldiers were mobilized, reserve units activated. Among those called to
duty was a Reserves soldier, a university student and a Talmudic scholar, who
made his living as a high school teacher: Shlomo Aumann, Professor Yisrael
Aumann's son. On the eve of the 19th of Sivan, in particularly
fierce combat, Shlomo fell in battle.

Rav Gustman mobilized his yeshiva:
All of his students joined him in performing the mitzvah of burying the dead.
At the cemetery, Rav Gustman was agitated: He surveyed the rows of graves of
the young men, soldiers who died defending the Land. On the way back from the
cemetery, Rav Gustman turned to another passenger in the car and said,
"They are all holy." Another passenger questioned the rabbi:
"Even the non-religious soldiers?" Rav Gustman replied:
"Every single one of them". He then turned to the driver and said,
"Take me to Professor Aumann's home.”

The family had just returned from the
cemetery and would now begin the week of shiv’a – mourning for
their son, brother, husband and father. (Shlomo was married and had one child.
His widow, Shlomit, gave birth to their second daughter shortly after he was
killed.)

Rav Gustman entered and asked to sit
next to Professor Aumann, who said: "Rabbi, I so appreciate your coming to
the cemetery, but now is time for you to return to your Yeshiva". Rav
Gustman spoke, first in Yiddish and then in Hebrew, so that all those assembled
would understand:

"I am sure that you don't know
this, but I had a son named Meir. He was a beautiful child. He was taken from
my arms and executed. I escaped. I later bartered my child's shoes so that we
would have food, but I was never able to eat the food – I gave it away to
others. My Meir is a kadosh – he is holy – he and all the six
million who perished are holy."

Rav Gustman then added: “I will tell
you what is transpiring now in the World of Truth in Gan Eden –
in Heaven. My Meir is welcoming your Shlomo into the minyan and
is saying to him ‘I died because I am a Jew – but I wasn't able to save anyone
else. But you – Shlomo, you died defending the Jewish People and the Land of Israel’.
My Meir is a kadosh, he is holy – but your Shlomo is a Shaliach
Zibbur – in that holy, heavenly minyan.”

Rav Gustman continued: “I never had
the opportunity to sit shiv’a for my Meir; let me sit here
with you just a little longer.” Professor Aumann replied, "I thought I
could never be comforted, but Rebbi, you have comforted me."

Rav Gustman did not allow his painful
memories to control his life. He found solace in his students, his daughter his
grandchildren, and in every Jewish child. He and his wife would attend an
annual parade (on Yom Yerushalayim) where children would march on Jerusalem in
song and dance. A rabbi who happened upon them one year asked the Rabbi why
he spent his valuable time in such a frivolous activity. Rav Gustman explained,
“We who saw a generation of children die, will take pleasure in a generation of
children who sing and dance in these streets.”

A student once implored Rav Gustman
to share his memories of the ghetto and the war more publicly and more
frequently. He asked him to tell people about his son, about his son’s shoes,
to which the Rav replied, “I can't, but I think about those shoes every day of
my life. I see them every night before I go to sleep.”

On the 28th of Sivan
5751 (1991), Rav Gustman passed away. Thousands marched through the streets of Jerusalem accompanying
Rav Gustman on his final journey. As night fell on the 29th of
Sivan, 9 years after Shlomo Aumann fell in battle, Rav Gustman was buried on
the Mount of Olives. I am sure that upon entering Heaven he was reunited
with his wife, his teachers and his son Meir. I am also sure that Shlomo Aumann
and all the other holy soldiers who died defending the People and the Land of Israel
were there to greet this extraordinary Rabbi.

On December 10th 2005,
Professor Robert J. Aumann was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics. I am sure
he took with him to Stockholm memories of his late wife Esther, and
his son Shlomo. I suspect he also took memories of his Rabbi, Rav Gustman.

May it be the will of God that the
People of Israel sanctify His Name by living lives of holiness which will serve
as a light to the nations – and may no more children, soldiers or yeshiva
students ever need to join that holy minyan in Heaven.

Postscript:

The last time I saw Rav Gustman, I
was walking in the Meah Sharim/Geulah section of Jerusalem with my
wife and oldest son who was being pushed in a stroller. It was Friday morning
and we saw the Rosh Yeshiva, we said hello, wished him “Good Shabbes.” Then, I
did something I rarely do: I asked him to bless my son. Rav Gustman looked at
the toddler, smiled and said “May he be a boy like all the other boys”. At
first, my wife and I were stunned; what kind of blessing was this? We expected
a blessing that the boy grow to be a zaddik – a righteous man
– or that he be a Talmid Chacham – a Torah scholar. But no, he
blessed him that he should be “like all the boys”.

It took many years for this beautiful
blessing to make sense to us. The blessing was that he should have a normal
childhood, that he have a normal life, that he have his health… Looking back, I
realize what a tremendous blessing Rav Gustman gave, and why.

Today, that son - Matityahu, and our
second son Hillel, are soldiers in combat units in the Israeli Defense Forces.
Brave, strong, motivated and idealistic, they are wonderful soldiers, wonderful
Jews. I pray that they return home safely along with all their comrades, and
live normal lives – “just like all the boys”.

Our earliest sources make no mention of
a ban on haircuts
during Sefirat ha-Omer (the days
between Pesach and Shavuot).
The Ritz Giat, for example, refers only
to marriage:

"All of Israel is accustomed to not marry
between Pesach and Shavuot.
This is because of mourning, not because
of any prohibition...[The mourning
is restricted to
not] marrying
("nisuin"), for the main joy
is at the bridal
canopy ("chuppa") and the marriage itself, but there is no restriction on
"erusin" and "kiddushin" (legal engagement)... So ruled the Geonim."

The custom
to refrain from
having a haircut ("tisporet") during the
Omer appears in the Tur (OC 493); according to the Beit Yosef, its source
is Rav Yehoshua ibn Shuib's "Derasha for the First Day of Pesach."

In order to deal with our question, whether
one can shave before Shabbat during this
period, we must relate to three
different issues:

1. Does
"tisporet" including shaving, or just cutting the hair on one's head?

2. Is this custom part of the existing laws of mourning, and, if so, which stage of mourning?

3. Does the
obligation of honoring Shabbat override
the custom forbidding tisporet.

1. DEFINING
"TISPORET"

We find (Ta'anit 15b)
a prohibition against "tisporet" in the rules for the participants in
the ma'amad (shifts of Israelites who made a pilgrimage to the Temple to
represent the nation during the communal sacrifices). Though
the parameters of the prohibition are not stated here, some of the
sources regarding laws of mourning relate directly to this issue.

Masekhet Semachot
(7:11) reads: "What is the rule of "tisporet?" Cutting all hair is forbidden - the
head, the mustache, the beard and all
other hair." In contrast, the gemara
(Mo'ed Katan 24a) derives
the prohibition from Vayikra 10:6: "You (Aharon and his
remaining sons after the deaths of Nadav and Avihu) should not let your
hair grow long [as normal mourners
do]." Ostensibly this refers only to
cutting the hair on the head.

The Rambam rules
(Hilkhot Evel 5:2):

"How do we know that
a mourner is
prohibited from 'tisporet?' The sons of Aharon were commanded "Do
not let your hair grow long" - implying that any
other mourner is prohibited from cutting
his hair and must let it grow wild. Just as the mourner is prohibited from
cutting the hair of his head, so too is
he prohibited from cutting the hair of his
beard and all other hair."

The Rambam implies
that the basic prohibition of hair- cutting only applies to the head, based on
the verse, while shaving is merely an extension of that prohibition.

2. MOURNING DURING THE
OMER

Aside from
the semantic question of defining
the specific parameters of tisporet, we must discuss the nature of the custom of refraining from haircuts during
the Omer. It is most likely not an independent one, but is
rather part and parcel
of the laws
of mourning which
are appropriate to this time period.

There are different
levels of mourning: the seven-day (shiva),
thirty-day (sheloshim), and twelve-month periods. It seems
obvious that the level of mourning
in effect during the
Omer is parallel to that of
the twelve-month period, for all the prohibitions included in the
custom - festive gatherings, marriage,
and hair cutting - are those that extend
beyond the thirty day period.
On the other hand,
none of the prohibitions that last only thirty days are included in the custom.

During the
twelve-month period, both getting a haircut and
shaving are prohibited, but only "until one's friends scold him [to tell him that his hair
is too long]" ("ad she- yig'aru bo chaveirav": Moed Katan 22b;
Rambam Hilkhot Evel 6:3).

Someone who goes a day or two without shaving would certainly deserve
a reminder from his friends
to shave. However, the Acharonim
argue about whether one can cut his hair
only when his friends ACTUALLY scold him, or when the TIME for scolding arrives, regardless of
whether anyone did so. If we accepted
the second opinion, there would be room to
permit one who reached that stage
- usually within a very few days, definitely after a week - to
shave.

The Ramban, in his
extensive discussion in Torat Ha- adam about
whether the laws of mourning are
biblical or rabbinic in
origin, proposes a
distinction between different types
of prohibitions. Those
that bar the mourner
from indulging in luxuries are Torah
laws, while those that
thrust upon him
distinctly uncomfortable, substandard
conditions are rabbinically mandated.
So, for example, washing in hot
water is considered a luxury and is biblically
prohibited, but not
washing at all
causes discomfort and is rabbinically prohibited.

It is possible, at
least according to one opinion in the Rishonim,
to infer that
the same is
true for "tisporet." The Rishonim debate whether a mourner can
trim his mustache if
it interferes with eating: The
Ramban permits it even during the first seven days of mourning, whereas the Ra'avad prohibits it
all thirty days. The Ritz Giat (who is
followed by the Shulchan Arukh YD 390:1) takes a middle
approach; during the first seven
days it is prohibited, but afterwards it is
permitted.

The Ramban and the Ra'avad are clear: they disagree whether the
need for eating is a legitimate cause
for permitting trimming one's
mustache during mourning. The Ritz
Giat's hybrid opinion, distinguishing between
the seven-day and the thirty-day periods, needs explanation. He might,
like the Ramban in Torat
Ha-adam, distinguish between shiva, when discomfort is mandated, and sheloshim when only luxuries are prohibited. During the first seven days he
must let his mustache grow even if it
interferes with eating; afterwards only hair-cutting in general
is prohibited, but not that which causes actual discomfort.

One might apply the Ritz Giat's distinction to our
issue and permit shaving without
resorting to the rule of "ge'ara"
(scolding). One who shaves regularly does not view his shaving
as a luxury, to look his
best; he feels uncomfortable and unkempt if he does
not shave for a few days. Therefore, there is no reason to distinguish
between trimming a mustache, the case he spoke about, and shaving a beard. We
may distinguish, though, based on the
Rambam, between haircuts, which are the basic prohibition, and the others,
which are extensions thereof.
When the Rishonim spoke about "giluach," they had trimming
a beard in mind.

Trimming a beard is similar to a haircut; it is done
to look good, not
to avoid looking
ugly or feeling uncomfortable. Based
on the Ritz
Giat, it would
be permitted to shave
once every several
days, for the mourning of the Omer is certainly not on
the level of the shiva.

If shaving, for a clean-shaven man, is
analogous to trimming a
mustache that gets in the way of eating,
then even during "sheloshim" one could permit shaving
every few days. This is certainly not the prevalent custom
(although I know of a case where Ha-gaon
Rav Moshe Soloveitchik z"tl ruled
leniently - though I do not know what
rationale he relied upon - that a lawyer could shave for his
livelihood during sheloshim). With
regards to the
twelve-month period, though, which is less stringent, one could
rely on this leniency.

3. SHAVING BEFORE SHABBAT

The above two
reasons, a) having reached the situation where people would tell the mourner to
cut his hair and b) discomfort being a
feature only of shiva and not of the periods which follow, permit shaving
during the week, once every few
days. Before Shabbat,
though, there are additional reasons
to be lenient maybe
even to REQUIRE shaving for one who is accustomed to
shave daily.

Honoring
("kevod") Shabbat includes preparing oneself through washing and
wearing clean clothing. Nowadays, for people
who shave daily, shaving is a regular part of pre- Shabbat preparations. The gemara speaks of a case where a prohibition
against shaving clashes with
kevod Shabbat (Ta'anit 15b):
"The men of the 'mishmar' (kohanim-priests on rotation
for Temple service)
and the men
of the 'ma'amad' (as explained above) are forbidden to cut
hair and to wash
clothes, but on Thursday they are
permitted because of kevod Shabbat."

One might
reject this source as irrelevant
to our discussion by
pointing out that the prohibition
of hair cutting for the men of
the mishmar and the ma'amad is not connected to mourning, but was made in
order to insure that they shave earlier,
similar to the prohibition of shaving during
chol ha-mo'ed (Ta'anit 17a).

The gemara
on Ta'anit 26b, though,
is certainly relevant:

"During the week
on which Tisha
Be-av falls, it is prohibited to
cut hair and to wash
clothes, but it permitted on Thursday for kevod
Shabbat."

The commentary
ascribed to Rashi comments that if
Tisha Be-av falls out on Shabbat one can
wash on Thursday. Here, breaking mourning is explicitly permitted because of kevod Shabbat.

Tosafot's position
(Ta'anit 30a s.v. Ve-tarvayhu le- kula) is
more extreme than Rashi's. They
permit washing and cutting hair on Thursday even if Tisha Be-av
comes out on Thursday -
even though one
could do all
these preparations on erev
Shabbat! Because of the "burden
of Shabbat preparations one
should not wait
until erev Shabbat." Although the Beit Yosef was astounded by
this radical opinion and
therefore ascribed it to a
mistaken student, the fact that the same comment appears in Tosafot Ha-rosh makes his doubts
implausible. Even if one does not go as far as the Tosafot, permitting mourning
prohibitions on Tisha Be-av itself because of kevod Shabbat,
there is certainly firm
basis to permit shaving
during the Omer because of kevod Shabbat.

True, the Or Zarua writes that only washing clothes was
permitted because of kevod
Shabbat, but not cutting hair. However,
the Magen Avraham
explains that his reasoning is that one washes clothes every week but
does not cut one's hair every
week. If that is the case, then in a situation where one does shave
every week, even the Or Zarua would permit shaving for kevod Shabbat.

The mourning customs
of the Omer are much more lenient than those of the week of Tisha B'Av.

SUMMARY:

There are two reasons to
permit those who shave daily to shave during the Omer on a normal weekday:

1. After several days one reaches the level of "ge'ara," where friends
would scold him
because he looks un-presentable (according to those who
say that one does not have to actually be told by people).

2. The level
of not shaving which causes discomfort
and looks undignified is
mandated only during
shiva, but probably not during
sheloshim and certainly not during the twelve-month
period that the Omer parallels (Ritz Giat). Hence,
since kevod Shabbat takes
precedence over mourning customs
of the Omer (based on Ta'anit 26b), it
is not only permissible,
but obligatory to
shave before Shabbat.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

“THESE BONES WILL LIVE!”

Excerpt from "Emanations" Rabbi Ari D. Kahn

The Talmud in Megila teaches:

“Rav Huna said in the name of Rav
Shesheth: On the Sabbath of Chol Hamoed, on both Pesach and Sukkot we read from
scripture “V’ata R’ay” (Shmot 33). The Haftorah on Pesach, “The Dry Bones”
(Yechezkel 37) and on Sukkot “The day of the arrival of Gog” (Yechezkal 38)”
(Megila 31a)

R. Huna said in the name of R. Shesheth:
On the Sabbath which falls in the intermediate days of the festival, whether
Passover or Tabernacles, the passage we read from the Torah is ‘See, Thou
[sayest unto me]’ and for haftarah on Passover the passage of the ‘dry bones’,
and on Tabernacles, ‘In that day when Gog shall come’. (Megila 31a)

The passage in the Talmud discusses the appropriate readings for the
various Festivals. Generally the text which is read has an intrinsic connection
with the day, but in this case no connection is apparent. Over a thousand years ago, this question was asked
of Rav Hai Gaon, the leading scholar of his generation. He responded that he
was not aware of any intrinsic connection between the scripture read in the
Haftorah and these holidays, but continued:

“I have a tradition from the Sages that
Resurrection will take place in Nissan, and victory over Gog and Magog, will
take place in Tishrei; therefore in Nissan we read of the dry bones (which will
live) in the Haftorah, and in Tishrei we read of the battle of Gog” (Tur Oruch
Haim section 490, see Otzar Hagaonim Megilah pg 64)

This tradition, that Resurrection is to take place in Nissan, is the key
to a number of passages in the Talmud.

“It was taught, Rabbi Eliezer said; in
Tishrei the world was created, in Tishrei the Avot were born, in Tishrei the
Avot perished, on Pesach Yitzchak was born, on Rosh Hashanah Sarah, Rachel, and
Hanah were answered. On Rosh Hashanah Yosef left prison, on Rosh Hashanah the slavery came to
an end in Egypt. In Nissan we were redeemed, in Tishrei we will be redeemed in
the future. Rav Yehoshua said, in Nissan the world was created, in Nissan the Avot
were born, in Nissan the Avot perished, On Pesach Yitzchak was born, .. In
Nisan we were redeemed, in Nissan we will be redeemed (Rosh Hashanah 10b-11a)

It has been taught: R. Eliezer says: In
Tishri the world was created; in Tishri the Patriarchs were born; in Tishri the
Patriarchs died; on Passover Isaac was born; on New Year Sarah, Rachel and
Hannah were visited; on New Year Joseph went forth from prison (Talmud - Rosh
HaShana 11a) on New Year the bondage of our ancestors in Egypt ceased; in Nisan
they were redeemed and in Nisan they will be redeemed in the time to come. R.
Joshua says: In Nisan the world was created; in Nisan the Patriarchs were born;
in Nisan the Patriarchs died; on Passover Isaac was born; on New Year Sarah,
Rachel and Hannah were visited; on New Year Joseph went forth from prison; on
New Year the bondage of our ancestors ceased in Egypt; and in Nisan they will
be redeemed in time to come.

In this passage we find that two of the great Tannaim, Rabbis Eliezer
and Yehoshua, argue not only about biblical chronology but also about
eschatology. At the root of this disagreement is the intricate relationship of
history and destiny in the view of these great sages. Days have a personality or a charisma of
their own, just as people do; therefore the understanding of the past allows us
to better understand the future. Rabbi Eliezer
and Rabbi Yehoshua have a fundamental argument regarding when the world
came into being, and their differences
are interrelated with the question of
how the End of Days will shape up.

Tishrei is a month of judgment, while Nissan is a month of miracles, as
is indicated by its very name (“Nissan”, perhaps from the root “nes”, miracle).
In this context, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua differ over the very nature
of existence: Is our life defined primarily by justice or mercy? Tosefot, in
their comments to the passage in Tractate Rosh Hashanah, point out that
actually both aspects are accurate
representations of our existence: Rabbi Eliezer focuses on the thought
of creation which came into existence in Tishrei, while Rabbi Yehoshua focuses on the actual Creation which took
place in Nissan. It is interesting to note that
Jewish law reflects the opinion of
Rabbi Yehoshua, as is evidenced by a relatively obscure law: Birchat
Hachama, a blessing on the sun which may be made every 28 years when the sun is in the exact
alignment it was at the moment of creation, is pronounced in Nissan (see
Shulchan Aruch 229:2 Mishna Brura 7).

If creation indeed took place in Nissan, thereby establishing the law in
accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, then we may conclude that Redemption will also
take place in Nissan, as per Rabbi Yehoshua. This is interesting in and of
itself, but does not seem connected with our original question regarding
Resurrection. The connection is only brought out by an additional passage:

“Rabbi Eliezer said, if Israel repent they
will be redeemed, if not they will not be redeemed. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him;
if they don’t repent they won’t be redeemed? Rather, The Holy One Blessed be He
will bring a king whose decrees are as difficult as Haman, and the Jews will
repent, and rectify their ways” (Sanhedrin 97b)

This matter is disputed by Tannaim: R.
Eliezer said: if Israel repent, they will be redeemed; if not, they will not be
redeemed. R. Joshua said to him, if they do not repent, will they not be
redeemed! But the Holy One, blessed be He, will set up a king over them, whose
decrees shall be as cruel as Haman's, whereby Israel shall engage in
repentance, and he will thus bring them back to the right path. Another
[Baraitha] taught: R. Eliezer said: if Israel repent, they will be redeemed, as
it is written, Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your
backslidings. R. Joshua said to him, But is it not written, ye have sold
yourselves for naught; and ye shall be redeemed without money? Ye have sold
yourselves for naught, for idolatry; and ye shall be redeemed without money —
without repentance and good deeds. R. Eliezer retorted to R. Joshua, But is it
not written, Return unto me, and I will return unto you? R. Joshua rejoined —
But is it not written, For I am master over you: and I will take you one of a
city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion? R. Eliezer replied,
But it is written, in returning and rest shall ye be saved. R. Joshua replied,
But is it not written, Thus saith the Lord, The Redeemer of Israel, and his
Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nations abhorreth, to a
servant of rulers, (Talmud - Sanhedrin 98a) Kings shall see and arise, princes
also shall worship? R. Eliezer countered, But is it not written, if thou wilt
return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto me? R. Joshua answered, But it is
elsewhere written, And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the
waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto
heaven, and swore by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time,
times and a half’ and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of
the holy people, all these things shall be finished. At this R. Eliezer
remained silent.

Again, Rabbi Eliezer’s view of the world is based on merit, on judgment
and justice. Redemption is possible only if the Jews deserve it, if they
repent. In its conclusion, the Talmud teaches that according to Rabbi Yehoshua,
Redemption is unconditional; his statement that
G-d would bring a wicked tyrant to persecute us was Rabbi Yehoshua’s
understanding of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion (The Jerusalem Talmud Ta’anit 1:1,
reports that it was Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, and not Rabbi Yehoshua’s, that G-d would bring a wicked tyrant on the
Jews if they do not repent on their own). In the end of the passage Rabbi
Eliezer is silenced by the arguments of Rabbi Yehoshua. Apparently both agree
that Redemption will come sooner or later, but Redemption will inevitably come
(the Ramban clearly states that in conclusion Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi
Yehoshua, as is indicated by his “silence”. See “Sefer HaGeulah” Kitvei Ramban
Volume 1 page 277).

Juxtaposing these two Talmudic
teachings allows us to draw conclusions regarding the sages’ debate: In
Tractate Rosh Hashanah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua argue as to when
Creation took place and when the final
Redemption will come. If these two arguments are connected, the passage in
Tractate Sanhedrin is highly instructive. The argument regarding Redemption,
ends with the acquiescence of Rabbi Eliezer, which is consistent with our
understanding of the passage in Rosh Hashanah, where the law is also established
in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehoshua. Tosafot’s teaching, which
reconciles the two positions by identifying each with a “different” Creation,
may be applied to both passages equally:
There is no fundamental argument, rather, one passage refers to the idea
of Creation while the other refers to the actual Creation.

In other words, do we consider the beginning of the process, or are we
concerned with the end result? Rabbi
Eliezer focused on the beginning of the process of Creation; therefore he
speaks of Tishrei, which is the time of Creation in thought, long before
anything existed in reality. Similarly, Rabbi Eliezer, when considering
Redemption, spoke of the upheaval which will lead to spiritual renaissance.
This is the beginning of the process of Redemption. On the other hand, Rabbi
Yehoshua focused on the end of the process, the actual Creation. The tradition
referred to by Rav Hai Gaon, that resurrection will take place in Nissan,
refers to the end of the process of Redemption,
resurrection.

Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion finds its own expression in the Talmud: The
Talmud only uses the phrase “Atchalta d’Geula -“Beginning of the
redemption” in one place-

“War is also
considered the beginning of the redemption” (Megila 17b)

Rabbi Eliezer, who looked at the beginning of the process of Creation,
considered the beginning of the redemptive process as well: The Haftorah for
Chol HaMoed Sukkot describes the apocalyptic battle between Gog and Magog, the
beginning of the process of Redemption.
This epic battle, which Israel is destined to be swept into if they do
not repent in due course, is to take place in Tishrei, the month in which
Sukkot is celebrated. Here, then, is the link with the Haftorah which we
sought. It is the link between Tishrei and the Atchalta d’Geula which
Rabbi Eliezer illuminated.

The association of Resurrection with Nissan has a number of expressions
and implications. One of the teachings which both Rabbis agreed on was the
birth of Yitzchak on Pesach. Yitzchak is the first biblical figure who is
linked with resurrection. One Midrash describes the connection in the following
terms: When Yitzchak was tied down to the altar at the Akaida,

“The angels began to cry and their tears
fell on the blade, the knife rose up to the neck of Yitzchak, for he (Avraham)
could not control it. His (Yitzchak’s) soul departed him. G-d called Michael
(the angel) and said “Why are you standing there? Do not allow him to slaughter
him” Immediately Michael called out “Avraham, Avraham” …he let go (of the
knife) and his soul returned, he(Yitzchak) stood on his feet and pronounced the
blessing “Blessed is he who restores life to the dead” (Baruch michayei maytim)
(Otzar Midrashim page 146)

According to this Midrash, the first one to utter the blessing on
restoration of life was Yitzchak, when his own life was restored. This idea is
also consistent with a second teaching. We are taught that the first 3
blessings of the amidah are called “Avot”. While the other elements of the
amidah vary depending on the day, these 3 blessings are constants. The first of
these blessings, which speaks of G-d’s chesed, is “Magen Avraham”,
associated with Avraham and the spiritual realm so inseparably associated with
him. The second blessing is “Michayei HaMaytim,” and is similarly related to
Yitzchak. The second blessing starts with “Ata gibor,” gevurah being the
spiritual attribute associated with
Yitzchak and the one which is preserved
and expressed 3 times a day by Jews for millennia. The second blessing of the amidah
is instructive in other ways:

“You are eternally mighty my Lord, the
resuscitator of the dead are you; abundantly able to save …”

In the winter the phrase which follows is:

“He makes the wind blow and the rain
descend, He sustains the living with kindness”

In Israel, in the summer months the subsequent phrase reads :

“Bring down the dew!

He sustains the living with kindness”

The difference between these two phrases seems obvious, the distinction
being in the object of our prayer,
either rain or dew. There is, however, a
more subtle difference. The prayer said
in the winter is “He makes the wind blow and the rain (geshem) descend, He
sustains the living with kindness”. There are some who have a custom of
saying Gashem (kamatz, instead of segol). The significance of the punctuation
goes way beyond the grammatical:
“Geshem” is the form of the word which would appear in the middle of a
sentence, whereas “Gashem” indicates the end of the sentence. The alternative readings would indicate
whether the second half of the blessing modifies the first, or stands
alone. Geshem , rather than Gashem,
would indicate that the kindness
which is bestowed is the rain itself. The phrase used in the summer is “Moreed
hatal,” the word tal (dew) punctuated with a kamatz. “Dew” is the end of the
sentence, as opposed to a later appearance in the weekday amidah where the word tal, with a patach, is used in the middle of the
sentence.

If the term “Bring down the dew!”
is the end of the sentence, then it must modify what immediately
preceded it; “You are eternally mighty my Lord, the resuscitator of the dead
are you; abundantly able to save: Bring down the dew!” Dew is directly connected with
resurrection. But what is the nature of this connection? In numerous places in
Talmud, Midrash and Zohar, we see that dew is the catalyst which brings about
the Resurrection!

“Dew - tal will be used in the future by
the Holy One Blessed be He to bring about Resurrection” (Chagiga 12b)

“After each of the 10 Commandments (the
people died when G-d spoke) so (G-d) brought dew on them which will be used in
the future to resurrect man, and they came back to life” (Shabbat 88b)

“How do we know that Resurrection will
only take place via dew?…(Yerushalmi Brachot 5:2)

By means of that dew all will rise from
the dust, as it says, “for thy dew is as the dew of lights” (Is. XXVI, 19),
these being the supernal lights through which the Almighty will in future pour
forth life upon the world. (Zohar, Bereshith, 130b)

Said R. Hiya: ‘And what is more, from the
words, “Thy dead ones will live” (Isa. XXVI, 19), it is evident that not only
will there be a new creation, but that the very bodies which were dead will
rise, for one bone in the body remains intact, not decaying in the earth, and
on the Resurrection Day the Holy One will soften it and make it like leaven in
dough, and it will rise and expand on all sides, and the whole body and all its
members will be formed from it, and then the Holy One will put spirit into it.’
Said R. Eleazar: ‘Assuredly so. And the bone will be softened by the dew, as it
says: “Thy dead ones shall live... for thy dew is the dew of plants” (Ibid.).’
(Zohar, Shemoth, 28b)

We would expect that the second blessing of the amidah, the one
connected with Yitzchak, the blessing which concludes “Blessed is G-d who
brings the dead to life”, would naturally make reference to the final
Resurrection. If so, when we say “Bring the dew!” our intention should be
“Bring the resurrection!”

The prayer for rain is said only in the winter. On Pesach, we begin to ask for tal. At the time of our redemption from Egypt, the time of the birth of Yitzchak, we say this blessing
with anticipation of the complete Redemption, the end of the Redemption:
Resurrection. This is the full circle of
the second blessing of the amidah and the link between the month of
Nissan, the birth of Yitzchak, the Exodus and the result of the Redemption
which Rabbi Yehoshua sought to draw in the passage in Tractate Rosh HaShanah.

When the Jews left Egypt they had three goals: 1. To leave Egypt, 2. To
receive the Torah 3. To build the Temple. In the Ramban’s Introduction to the
Book of Shmot he explains that Shmot is
the book of redemption, but the book can not end after leaving Egypt nor after
the receiving of the Torah. The book does not end until the Mishkan-Temple is
built. Pesach marks the celebration of leaving Egypt, but it can not be seen in
a vacuum. On Pesach we immediately begin counting the days until the Torah is
given at Sinai. But receiving the Torah is not an end in and of itself.
Receiving the Torah means living the Torah, following its statutes, taking the
ideals described in the Torah and turning them into a wonderful reality. The
reality of living the Torah necessarily leads to the Messianic Age, and
culminates in the end of this Age - Resurrection. For this reason, on the
Shabbat of Chol Hamoed we read the description of how dry bones shall live, for
the bones coming to life are the culmination of the Redemption begun on Pesach.

“You are eternally mighty my Lord, the
resuscitator of the dead are you; abundantly able to save: Bring down the dew!”

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

The Students of Rabbi Akiva and The Omer

Excerpt from "Emanations" Rabbi Ari D. Kahn

The days between Pesach and Shavuot are known
as the Omer. These days are counted as we anxiously await Chag Shavuot, the day
commemorating the giving of the Torah. It is interesting to note that the Torah
itself does not explicitly state that Shavuot is the day on which the Torah was
given. From the biblical perspective, the counting is directed towards a date of
agricultural significance, as the new fruits would be brought to Jerusalem on
Shavuot. On the other hand, the understanding that this is indeed the day of
Revelation is based on simple mathematics, implicit in the narrative.[1]

The Torah successfully merges pedestrian,
mundane activity with deep theological constructs. While from man’s perspective
the harvest may be the impetus for joy, the Torah stresses that these first
fruits must be brought within a religious context. We can readily understand
how agricultural man would have been overjoyed when the literal fruits of his
labor came to fruition. The Torah’s order places this very human, natural joy
within a religious context. Moreover, by linking this agricultural festival
with the very day on which the holy Torah itself was revealed surely elevated
the joy from the mundane to the sacred. Thus, the counting in Temple times
between Pesach and Shavuot had a dual component, sacred and mundane, each
independently a reason to rejoice.

Be that as it may, in the contemporary
religious collective experience, these are days of mourning. No weddings or
other public expressions of joy are celebrated. The accepted explanation for
this transformation of a joyful period into a time of mourning is the demise of
the students of Rabbi Akiva:

It was said that R. Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of disciples, from
Gabbatha to Antipatris; and all of them died at the same time because they did
not treat each other with respect. The world remained desolate until R. Akiva
came to our Masters in the South and taught the Torah to them. These were R.
Meir, R. Yehuda, R. Yose, R. Shimon and R. Elazar b. Shammua; and it was they
who revived the Torah at that time. A Tanna taught: All of them died between
Pesach and Shavuot. R. Hama b. Abba or, it might be said, R. Hiyya b. Abin
said: All of them died a cruel death. What was it?-R. Nahman replied: Croup.
(Yevamot 62b)[2]

The Talmud speaks of twelve thousand “pairs”
of students and not of twenty four thousand, ostensibly in order to stress the
lack of unity of which they were guilty. The Talmud does not mention that their
deaths are commemorated with the yearly mourning period of the Omer. And so,
while the authority of switching a biblically happy time into a time of
mourning is said to be based on a passage in the Talmud, the Talmud tells a sad
tale but does not draw this-all important conclusion. There are those who have
claimed that the custom of mourning was instituted during the Talmudic period;[3]
there is, however, no Talmudic statement which supports this opinion and
consequently there are those who opine that the custom is, in fact, of later
origin.[4]

Of particular interest is the formulation of
the Rav Yichiel Michel Epstein in his classic “Aruch HaShulchan”. The tragedy
of the students of Rabbi Akiva is connected with the crusades, pogroms and
blood libels suffered over the course of Jewish history. These attacks were
often rooted in a twisted Christian perspective of the Pesach ceremony, and the
days after Pesach became a time of peril for Jews in Christendom. Rav Epstein
describes these days as well-established days of “judgement”.[5]
According to this approach, the Rabbis in the Middle Ages felt that the nature
of this period was harsh, despite the Torah’s perspective that this was a time
of joy. The Talmudic passage concerning Rabbi Akiva’s students served as an
anchor for turning a happy period into a time of mourning. The logic was that
if the students of Rabbi Akiva died specifically during these days, their
nature is not as straightforward as we might have thought. In other words, the
reason that the Omer has become a time of mourning is the death of the students
of Rabbi Akiva, but the specific impetus for instituting customs of mourning was
the blood libels of the Middle Ages.[6]

The story of the deaths of the students of
Rabbi Akiva may be part of a much larger issue. An analysis of a later parallel
source may provide the clue necessary to unravel the mystery. Rav Shrira Gaon,
commenting on the original passage, uses a very telling expression to describe
the death of the students:

Rabbi Akiva raised many students, [but] there was a religious
persecution [shmada] on the students of Rabbi Akiva (letter of Rav Shrira Gaon,
Sefardic recension page 13)

The Talmud spoke of a plague striking the
students, yet Rav Shrira speaks of religious persecution! The change is subtle
yet the implication drastic. The Talmudic tradition seemed quite clear: these
students treated one another without respect, and therefore died of a plague.
What caused Rav Shrira to introduce religious persecution as the cause of the
students’ demise? A careful reading leads us to the conclusion that Rav Shrira
does not disagree with the Talmud. Surely, in the tradition of thousands of
commentaries before and after his time Rav Shrira saw his task as interpreting
the Talmudic passage, and not disagreeing with the Talmud.

Apparently Rav Shrira had a tradition that
the students died during a religious conflict. The book that this information
is found in is primarily a book with an historical agenda. The work “The Letter
of Rav Shrira Gaon” contains singular traditions of the Talmudic period. This
book – or “letter”, as it is called- is the major source for information about
the Talmudic age. If we posit that Rav Shrira saw his role as the telling of
history, while the role of the Talmud is to share theological perspectives, the
question dissipates: Rav Shrira tells us how the students died while the
Talmud tells us why they died. The Talmud, the unparalleled work of
Rabbinic Judaism, had no need to retell well-known historical episodes. Its
task was to illuminate and explain G-d’s hand in history – to explain why
things, especially specific tragedies, befell our people. Ironically, in this
instance, the Talmud became our primary source for what were well-known events.
Though the Talmud was not interested in telling us what happened, rather why it
happened, uninitiated readers were deluded into thinking they knew what happened
as well. Rav Shrira wished to set the record straight. Therefore he tells us
what happened; the students died due to religious persecution.

The question which emerges is which religious
persecution is referred to? We know that Rabbi Akiva was himself eventually
murdered as part of the Hadrianic executions. We also know that Rabbi Akiva was
an enthusiastic supporter of Bar Kochva.[7] Therefore the association between Rabbi
Akiva’s “students” and the followers of Bar Kochva is likely.[8]

The Rambam describes Rabbi Akiva as an “arms
bearer” of Bar Koziba.[9]
The source of the Rambam’s assertion is a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud:

Rav
Shimon Ben Yochai taught; Akiva my master would expound the verse “A star will
come from Yaakov” as ‘Koziba will come from Yaakov.’ When Rabbi Akiva would see
Bar Koziba he would say, “There is the King Messiah.” Rav Yochanan ben Torta
said; “Akiva, grass will grow from your cheeks and still the son of David will
not come.” (Yerushalmi Taanit chapter 4:5 page 68d)

The verse in question is in the prophecy of
Bil’am, Israel’s would-be anathema who instead blessed the Jewish people:

I shall see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not near; there
shall come a star out of Ya’akov, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel, and
shall strike the corners of Moav and destroy all the sons of Seth. (Bamidbar
24:17)

Bil’am’s clairvoyance allowed him to see a
star who would yet emerge and lead the Jewish People. Rabbi Akiva declared that
the fulfillment of this verse was in the person of Bar Kochva (literally, ‘Son
of a Star). In fact, his name was not actually Bar Kochva: Based on recent archeological
finds we know that his actual name was Bar Kosba (with the Hebrew letter
“samech”). The appellation Bar Kochva was part of the messianic identification
made by Rabbi Akiva, by applying this verse from Bil’am’s prophecy to Shimon
bar Kosba. After the rebellion was quashed, he was called Bar Koziba, “son of
deceit” or “disappointment”.

The aftermath of the painful defeat caused
Bar Kochva to receive a new moniker, which recorded the profound failure for
posterity.

While Rabbi Akiva afforded Messianic status
to the rebellion in general, and to Bar Kochva in particular, there was another
voice which spoke out in opposition:[10]

Rav
Yochanan ben Torta said; “Akiva grass will grow from your cheeks and still the
son of David will not come” (Yerushalmi Taanit chapter 4:5 page 68d)

The phrase is enigmatic.[11]
What is the inference of grass growing from the cheeks of Akiva? If it means
“Akiva, you will be in the grave before the Messiah arrives”, the passage
should have read“Akiva, grass will grow from your cheeks and then
the son of David will come”.[12]
It sounds as if Rav Yochanan ben Torata rejects the messianic age completely.[13]
This position is untenable for we know that Rav Yochanan Ben Torta believed in
the coming of the messianic age:

Rabbi Yochanan ben Torta said…But [regarding] the last Temple (the
third) which will be rebuilt in our lives, in our days, it is written “And it
shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall
be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the
hills; and all nations shall flow to it. And many people shall go and say:
Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the G-d of
Ya’acob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for
from Zion shall go forth Torah, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. [And
he shall judge among the nations, and shall decide for many people; and they
shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they learn war any
more.] (Yeshayahu 2:2-4) and it says
“For there shall be a day, when the watchmen[14]
upon Mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise, and let us go up to Zion to the Lord our
God.(Yirmiyahu 31:5) (Tosefta
Menachot 13:23)

If Rabbi Yochanan ben Torta
indeed believes in an impending messianic age, what is the nature of his attack
on Rabbi Akiva? If we listen to his words carefully it seems that there are two
problems:

Rav
Yochanan ben Torta said; “Akiva grass will grow from your cheeks and still the
son of David will not come” (Yerushalmi Taanit chapter 4:5 page 68d)

Even if this elusive grass were to grow from
Rabbi Akiva’s cheeks, there may be a second impediment. If we were to look at
the previous paragraph of the Toesfta cited above, this becomes clear:

Rabbi
Yochanan ben Torta said, ‘Why was Shilo destroyed? Because of the desecration
of the sacred things thereof. Jerusalem? The first Temple, why was it
destroyed? Because of idolatry, sexual licentiousness, and the spilling of
blood within. But this previous Temple (the second Temple) we knew (the people
of that era). They were diligent in Torah study, and careful with tithes. Why
were they exiled? Because they loved their money and man hated his neighbor.
(Tosefta Menachot 13:22)

Rabbi Yochanan ben Torta is the author of the
well-accepted view that the cause of the destruction of the Second Temple was
groundless hatred;[15]
if this is the case, we have now come full circle. We saw at the outset that
the students of Rabbi Akiva died because they did not treat one another with
respect. Therefore Rav Yochanan, who indeed believes the Messiah will come, is
adamant that the cause for the destruction of the Second Temple must be healed
before one can speak of a new messianic movement.

What then is the reference to the “grass
growing” from Rabbi Akiva’s cheeks? An analysis of the passage of the Rambam
will provide explanation.

“You
should not think that the messiah must perform miracles or wonders, or create
new realities, or bring back the dead,[16]
or other similar things; the matter is not so. For Rabbi Akiva was the greatest
sage of the age of the Mishna, and he was an arms-bearer of Bar Koziba the
King, and he said concerning him ‘He is the King Messiah,’ until he was killed
due to his sins. Once he was killed it became apparent to them that he was not
[the Messiah]. And the sages did not ask of him neither sign nor
wonder…(Rambam, Laws of Melachim 11:3)

The Rambam explains that life in the
messianic age will be no different from current times in terms of the
miraculous.[17]
What is the Rambam’s source? Rabbi Akiva, in our passage in the Yerushalmi. If
Rabbi Akiva concludes that the Messiah need not perform miracles, and Rav
Yochanan Ben Torta disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, then we may deduce that Rav
Yochanan ben Torta believed that the Messiah must perform miracles. Now we
understand why he says “Akiva grass will grow from your cheeks and still the
messiah will not come”.[18]
He seems to be saying, “as far as I am concerned the Messiah must perform
miracles, but even if a miracle worker appears, I do not believe that the
messianic age can begin prior to rectifying the cause of the destruction of the
previous Temple.”

The core of this argument between Rabbi Akiva
and Rav Yochanan ben Torta may be based on a similarity between these two great
individuals. Both began their careers as outsiders, and joined the sages at a
later point in life. Rabbi Akiva was an adult before he began to study Torah, a
fact preserved in numerous sources. Of particular relevance is the description
offered in Avot D’rabbi Natan:

“Drink
thirstily their words” this is Rabbi Akiva. What were the origins of Rabbi
Akiva? It was said that he was forty years old and had not learnt anything. One
time he was standing near a well and asked “Who made a hole in this stone?” It
was said to him “The water which constantly falls every day. Akiva, don’t you
know the verse “Water erodes stones” (Iyov 14:19)? Rabbi Akiva immediately
inferred the teaching regarding himself, and said “If that which is soft can
engrave that which is hard, then the words of Torah which are like steel can
certainly penetrate my heart which is but flesh and blood.” He immediately
returned to study Torah. (Avot D’Rebbi Natan chapter 6)

Here we are privy to the
moment of enlightenment which begins Rabbi Akiva’s spiritual odyssey from
ignorant shepherd to legendary scholar.[19]
The process was a natural one, just as one drop at a time can add up to an
ocean of water with incredible kinetic power.

The transformation of Rav Yochanan ben Torta is not as well known. The
source is the P’sikta which describes the incredible, spiritually- redemptive
power of the Para Aduma (Red Heifer):

Our Rabbis taught: There was
once a story of a Jew who owned a cow, with which he used to plow. He fell on
hard times, so he sold his cow to one particular non-Jew. The non-Jew took it
out and plowed with it for six days of the week. On Shabbat he took it out to
plow, he placed it under the yoke, he walked and beat the animal but it would
not budge from its place. When he saw this he went to the Jew who sold him the
cow and told him “Take your cow. It must be injured, for no matter how much I
beat it, it will not move from its place.” The Jew understood that it must be
because of Shabbat, being that the cow was accustomed to rest on the Shabbat.
He said, “Come and I will get the cow moving”.
When they got there he went over to the cow and said in its ear “Cow,
cow, you know that when I owned you, you ploughed during the week, and rested
on Shabbat. Now due to my sins [I lost my money and had to sell you. Now] you
are owned by a non-Jew. Please, I ask you, get up and plough”. The cow
immediately arose and ploughed. The non-Jew said, “I ask of you, please take
your cow. Until now I have been moving myself trying to get the cow up.
Moreover I am not releasing you until you tell me what you said in that cow’s
ear. I exhausted myself and beat the animal and it would not get up.” The Jew
tried to placate the non-Jew, and said, “It was not magic and the cow is not
possessed, but this is what I said in its ear …, and as a result it got up and
ploughed.” The Non-Jew became immediately frightened; he said, “If a cow which
cannot speak and has no human intelligence can recognize its Creator, while I
whom my Creator created in His image, and endowed me with human intelligence –
I don’t recognize that I have a Creator?!” He immediately came and converted.
He studied and merited [great success in] Torah. They called him Yochanan ben
Torta (literally, son of the ox), and until this very day the Rabbis teach laws
in his name. And if you are astounded how a cow brought a person under the
wings of the Shechina, by virtue of a cow is the purity of the entire community
of Israel. (Pesikta Rabati parsha 14)

In this amazing passage we find that Rav Yochanan ben Torta was born a
non-Jew. Only upon witnessing a miracle was he shocked into seeking his Maker.
His very name “Ben Torta” – “son of the cow” is testimony to his metamorphosis.[20]

Rabbi Akiva, who saw a natural process, extended his individual
experience to the entire community of Israel. He postulated that just as he
found his Maker, as a natural process, as the result of a natural process all
of Israel would find themselves, and join G-d in the partnership which he
offered them all those years ago. Rav Yochanan ben Torta, on the other hand,
felt that in order for the entire world to recognize G-d as Creator and
Sustainer of the Universe, nothing less than an open miracle would be effective.

The Rambam tells us that the law is according to Rabbi Akiva: the
messianic process is a natural one. Though Rav Yochanan ben Torta is credited
for pointing out the reason for the various destructions, Rabbi Akiva was
correct about the theory of redemption. The passage which tells us about the
death of Rabbi Akiva’s students seems to vindicate at least part of Rav
Yochanan ben Torta’s observation: A generation which is no better than the
generation which suffered the destruction, cannot expect to witness the
rebuilding of the Temple. Rabbi Akiva was surely aware of this, however Rabbi
Akiva was perhaps the greatest optimist our people has ever had. He thought
that once the process begins the idea of redemption would spread like wildfire,
and the people would reach the levels of greatness of which they were capable.
If he accomplished his incredible learning despite his advanced age and abject
poverty, certainly his illustrious people could bring about the messianic age.
Unfortunately, the people failed; the students and followers did not rise to
the occasion, and instead of redemption, further destruction ensued.

The days between Pesach and Shavuot mark the redemption that did not
happen. We mourn that failure. On Pesach, when we celebrate the Redemption from
Egypt, we also try to discern the art of redemption in order to make it a
reality in our own days. While ultimately Rabbi Akiva and his generation
failed, we must recognize that Rabbi Akiva was completely correct in his
understanding of the process, and the capability of man. Too many Jews are
followers of Rav Yochanan Ben Torta, awaiting the miraculous as a prerequisite
for redemption. These nay-sayers wait passively for the sign from heaven that
the time for redemption has come. We must follow Rabbi Akiva, and take
proactive steps, accepting our partnership with the Almighty. Drop after drop
after drop adds up to a tidal wave of activity. When we succeed, the days
between Pesach and Shavuot will reacquire their original identity and become a
time of joy.

Rabbi Yochanan ben Torta said…But [regarding] the last Temple (the
third) which will be rebuilt in our lives, in our days, it is written “And it
shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above
the hills; and all nations shall flow to it. And many people shall go and say:
Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the G-d of
Ya’acov; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths; for
from Zion shall go forth Torah, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. [And
he shall judge among the nations, and shall decide for many people; and they
shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they learn war any
more.] (Yishayahu 2:2-4) and it says
“For there shall be a day, when the watchmen upon Mount Ephraim shall cry,
‘Arise, and let us go up to Zion to the Lord our G-d.’(Yirmiyahu 31:5) (Tosefta Menachot 13:23)

[1] The actual date the Torah was given is a
subject which is debated in the Talmud - Shabbat 86b

“Our Rabbis taught: On the sixth day of the
month [Sivan] were the Ten Commandments given to Israel. R. Yose maintained: On
the seventh thereof. Said Rava: All agree that they arrived in the Wilderness
of Sinai on the first of the month. [For] here it is written, on this day they
came into the wilderness of Sinai (Shmot 19, 1).”

[4] See Birkei Yosef 493:10 where he cites a
number of opinions that the custom not to wed during this period is late and
spurious.

[5] Rav Yichiel Michel Epstein, Oruch HaShulchan
493:1. He also sites the Chok Ya’akov (493:3) and mentions the opinion of Rav
Yochanan ben Nuri, that the maximum hell to which a soul may be sentenced is
the length of the period between Pesach and Shavuot, (Mishna Edyot 2:9) which
further points to the “judgment” aspect of this period.

[6] The Aruch HaShulchan specifically states that
the custom began in the time of the Geonim. This may also explain why
specifically Sefardic poskim found the custom difficult.

[7] The Talmud says that the students died from the croup
which is the English word for “askara”, a term which denotes choking. The
association with Bar Kochva may explain this term, as Bar Kochva’s death is
described as taking place when a snake (a symbol of his sins) choked him:
Jerusalem Talmud Ta’anit 4:5, Midrash Rabbah – Eicha 2:4.

“Forthwith the sins caused Betar to be
captured. Bar Koziba was slain and his head taken to Hadrian. ‘Who killed him?’
asked Hadrian. A Goth said to him, ‘I killed him.’ ‘Bring his body to me,’ he
ordered. He went and found a snake encircling its neck; so [Hadrian, when told
of this] exclaimed, ‘If his G-d had not slain him who could have overcome him?”

The Bavli describes the death of Bar
Kochva as taking place at the hands of the sages: Talmud - Sanhedrin 93b: “Bar
Koziba reigned two and a half years, and then said to the Rabbis, ‘I am the
Messiah.’ They answered, ‘Of Messiah it is written that he smells and judges:
let us see whether he [Bar Koziba] can do so.’ When they saw that he was unable
to judge by the scent, they slew him.”

Most likely the intention that the Sages
wished to convey was that once the Rabbis withdrew their support, Bar Kochva
was defeated. The motivation for this response may be seen from another source,
which shows that Bar Kochva was unable to discern the greatness of one of the
Rabbis whom he suspected of treason and had him killed. (Midrash Eicha, and
Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 4:5) The Jerusalem Talmud adds that Bar Kochva was a
great warrior, and he said to G-d “Do not help nor hinder us and we will be
successful”. The Rambam and Ra’avad reflect these two traditions; see Laws of
Melachim 11:3, where the Rambam most likely understands that the sources
complement one another as I described above, because it is unlikely that he
would reject the Talmud Bavli in favor of another tradition.

[8] This would explain the incredible number
of “students” who perished. There have
been historians who have made this association. On the other hand, a number of
sources speak of students of Rabbi Akiva not behaving properly.

Nedarim 40a “Did
it not once happen that one of R. Akiva's disciples fell sick, and the Sages
did not visit him? So R. Akiva himself entered [his house] to visit him,
and because they swept and sprinkled the ground before him, he recovered. ‘My
master,’ said he, ‘you have revived me!’ [Straightway] R. Akiva went forth and
lectured: He who does not visit the sick is like a shedder of blood.”

Menachot 68b R.
Tarfon was sitting and asked this question: What [is the reason for the
difference in law] between [what is offered] before the Omer and [what is
offered] before the Two Loaves? Said Yehudah b. Nehemiah before him, No; you
can say [that what is offered] before the Omer [is invalid]. for the
prohibition [of the new corn] does not admit of any exception to the private
individual, but can you say so [of what is offered] before the Two Loaves,
seeing that the prohibition does admit of an exception to the private
individual? R. Tarfon remained silent, and at once the face of Yehudah b.
Nehemiah brightened with joy. Thereupon R. Akiva said to him, ‘Yehudah. your
face has brightened with joy because you have refuted the Sage; I wonder whether
you will live long’. Said R. Yehudah b. Ila'i, ‘This happened a fortnight
before Pesach, and when I came up for the ‘Azeret festival I enquired after
Yehudah b. Nehemiah and was told that he had passed away’.

This second source is particularly impressive
as the death clearly takes place between Pesach and Shavuot, and, ironically,
the topic of discussion was the Omer! One would have to posit that this type of
behavior was exhibited by 24,000
individual students, in order to take the first passage at face value. There
is, however, another source, which speaks of a “mere” 300 students who
perished. See Midrash Tanchuma Chaye Sara section 8, and Responsa Minchat
Yitzchak Volume 3 section 38, who surprisingly reads the number 300 into our
passage in the Talmud.

[9] The real name of the supposed messiah was Bar
Kosba, see below, after the failure he was known as Bar Koziba, this is how the
Rambam refers to him Melachim 11:3. The name Bar Kochva as such is not found in
Talmudic literature, cf. Buber edition of Midrash Eicha Rabba.

[10] The Rambam Laws of Melachim 11:3, makes it
sound as if the entire generation was in agreement with Rabbi Akiva, the
language “all the sages of the generation” must mean “most”. Unless this
represents a later view, after the revolt began to unravel.

[11] This is the only use of this phrase in
Rabbinic writings. I once discussed the phrase with Professor Daniel Sperber,
who informed me that the phrase is not used in Greek or Latin writings either.
Rabbi Soloveitchik once suggested that the idiom referred to Rabbi Akiva’s
eloquence.

[12] There is
another teaching of Rav Yochanan ben Torta which relates to the grave: Midrash
Rabba – Shir HaShirim 7:16: R. Yohanan b. Torta said: Even when one is dead,
his lips quiver in the grave. How do we know? Because it says, “Moving gently
the lips ofthose that are asleep”. (Shir Hashirim 7:10)

[13]
The Talmud does record one opinion of a certain Rebbi Hillel that the messianic
age was exhausted in the days of Hizkiya, but this opinion is considered
antinomian. See Sanhedrin 99a.

[14] “Notzrim” – ‘watchmen’, may be a play on
words meaning Christians—not, of course, in the Biblical text but in the
particular usage by Rav Yochanan ben Torta.

[15] This teaching is also found in Yoma 9a, but
the Talmudic discussion clouds the authorship of Rav Yochanan ben Torta. A
careful reading of that source will yield the same conclusion.

[16] It should be noted that Rabbi Menachem M.
Shneerson, in his commentary on this passage, concludes that the messianic age
– the coming of the Messiah - will predate the epoch of the resurrection. See
Chokrei Hazmanim by Alter Hilovitz, Mosad HaRav Kook, volume 2 pages 19-35, for
the Rebbi’s treatise on this passage.

[17] As seen in the previous footnote, we must
stress that there are various epochs described as being part of the Jewish
eschatological vision. According to the Rambam the messianic age is the first
part. While this epoch requires no change of nature, subsequent epochs must
include basic changes. For example, the Rambam clearly believes in
resurrection, as is evidenced by his including lack of belief in resurrection
as tantamount to heresy, in his laws of Teshuva. Therefore we may conclude that
resurrection is part of a later epoch. See article cited in previous note.

[18] This comment would be more caustic if Rabbi
Akiva was in fact bald, as is implied by at least one Talmudic source and is
the understanding of a number of medieval authorities. Talmud Bechorot 58a,
“‘Ben Azzai says: ‘All the Sages of Israel are in comparison with myself, as
thin as the husk of garlic, except that bald head.’ Rashi identifies the “bald
head” as Rabbi Akiva, hence Rav Yehoshua ben Korcha is the son of Rabbi Akiva.
Tosfot s.v. “Chutz”, Tosfot Baba Batra 113a, Rashbam and Tosfot Pesachim 112a,
Machzor Vitri section 424.

[19] See Pesachim 49b for an example of Rabbi
Akiva’s attitude from his days as an “am haaretz”.

[20] The only other conversation between Rabbi
Akiva and Rav Yochanan ben Torta recorded reads:

“TheRabbis related that once when R. Yochanan
b. Torta came before R. Akiva, the latter said to him: Rise and read the Torah
[for us].[He replied [“I have not reviewed the portion’; whereupon the Sages praised
him, [because he fulfilled the verse] ’ Then did he see it, and declare it.’
Midrash Rabba – Shmot 40:1

about me

Subscribe Now: text

About Me

Born in Brooklyn NY, moved to Israel in 1984.
I teach and write about Torah topics. Author of "Explorations" on the weekly Parsha and "Emanations" on holidays - both published by Targum/Feldheim
http://rabbiarikahn.com
ebook available
http://www.peopleoftheebooks.com/Book/Explorations.aspx?uid=79
Echoes of Eden - http://www.peopleoftheebooks.com/Book/Echoes+of+Eden.aspx?uid=189
http://www.gefenpublishing.com/product.asp?productid=1037